The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.

The following abstract and the aforementioned title were written by S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Wildlife Damage Control has received permission to reprint this abstract in its entirety which was "Previously published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001, pp 449-450."

Introduction Although the debate over the moral status of animals has been going on for thousands of years (Shapiro, 2000), there has been a resurgence of interest in this issue in the last quarter of the 20th century. One of the landmark philosophical works of this period was the book by Regan (1983) called "A Case for Animal Rights." In that book, Regan concludes that animals do have moral standing, that they are subjects-of-a-life with interests that deserve equal consideration to the same interests in humans, and therefore have the right to live their lives without human interference. As a consequence, he concludes that humans have a moral obligation to consume a vegan (use no animal products) diet and eliminate animal agriculture. However, production of an all vegan diet also comes at the cost of the lives of many animals, including mice, moles, gophers, pheasants, etc. Therefore, I asked Regan, "What is the morally relevant difference between killing a field mouse (or other animal of the field) so that humans may eat and killing a pig (or chicken, calf or lamb) for the same purpose? Animals must die so that humans may eat, regardless whether they eat a vegan diet or not. So, how are we to choose our food supply in a morally responsible manner?" Regan's response could be summarized by what may be called the "Least Harm Principle" or LHP (Regan, Personal Communication). According to LHP, we must choose the food products that, overall, cause the least harm to the least number of animals. The following analysis is an attempt to try to determine what humans should eat if we apply that principle.

Regan's Vegan Conclusion is Problematic

I find Regan's response to my question to be problematic for two reasons. The first reason is because it seems to be a philosophical slight of hand for one to turn to a utilitarian defense (LHP) of a challenge to his vegan conclusion which is based on animal rights theory. If the question, "What is the morally relevant difference?" can't be supported by the animal rights theory, then it seems to me that the animal rights theory must be rejected. Instead, Regan turns to utilitarian theory (which examines consequences of one's actions) to defend the vegan conclusion.

The second problem I see with his vegan conclusion is that he claims that the least harm would be done to animals if animal agriculture was eliminated. It may certainly be true that fewer animals may be killed if animal agriculture was eliminated, but could the LHP also lead to other alternative conclusions?

Would pasture-based animal agriculture cause least harm?

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them. 2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows and kill animals. 3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed by predators. 4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest, etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet) kills far more animals of the field than would extensive agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines. So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan.

Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available, but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US (USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or 1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet. If half of that land (60 million) was converted to forage production and if forage production systems decreased the number of animals of the field killed per year by 50% (5 per year per ha), the number of animals killed would be:

Therefore, in this hypothetical example, the change to include some forage-based animal agriculture would result in the loss of only 0.9 billion animals of the field instead of 1.2 billion to support a vegan diet. As a result, the LHP would suggest that we are morally obligated to consume a diet of ruminant products, not a vegan diet, because it would result in the death of fewer animals of the field.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to die to feed people? According to the USDA numbers quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion animals killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows, calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that would need to be killed under this alternative would still be fewer (0.9 billion + 82 million = 0.982 billion) than in the vegan alternative (1.2 billion).

In conclusion, applying the Least Harm Principle as proposed by Regan would actually argue that we are morally obligated to move to a ruminant-based diet rather than a vegan diet.

References

Davis, S.L. 2000. What is the Morally Relevant Difference between the Mouse and the Pig? Pp. 107-109 in the Proceedings of EurSafe 2000; 2nd Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics.

Disclaimer: WDC seeks to provide accurate, effective and responsible information on resolving human/wildlife conflicts. We welcome suggestions, criticisms to help us achieve this goal. The information provided is for informational purposes only and users of the information use it at their own risk. The reader must consult state/federal officials to determine the legality of any technique in the reader's locale. Some techniques are dangerous to the user and to others. WDC encourages readers to obtain appropriate training (see our informational literature at our Store ), possibly hire a professional (for help in finding one e-mail after visiting the previous link) and understand that proper animal damage control involves patience, understanding that not every technique/method works for every situation or even 100% of the time. Your use of this information is governed by this understanding. All information here is the copyright of Stephen Vantassel (Wildlife Damage Control). We welcome potential users of the information and photos to simply ask for permission via e-mail. Finally, WDC welcomes e-mail but understand that all e-mails become property of Wildlife Damage Control.

If all of that land was used to produce a plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or 1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet.

Liberals couldn't. Someone with a basic knowledge of farming could. There are 120 million hectares farmed in the US annually because it takes roughly 10 times the amount of forage land to produce a pound of beef as it does an equivalent pound of plant protein (mmmm. soybeans. [drooling sound]) This ratio varies significantly depending on the animal (emu and ostrich - both of which are very tasty - require approximately 3 times the amount of land to produce a pound of tasty flesh as the equivalent pound of plant protein (mmmm. wheat gluten. [drooling sound, sudden choking as sticky gluten blocks air ducts])). The vegan's theory is that by eliminating meat and meat byproducts from our economy, we will vastly reduce the amount of land necessary for agriculture. With less land being cultivated, less little fieldmice getting their heads chopped off by the disk.

The problem with the argument over all is that the numbers of dead critters from any form of agriculture is vastly greater than a mere 1.2 billion or .9 billion fieldmice. Compared to the number of insects and microbia (as long as we're talking about animal rights, why stop only with things that possess central nervous systems?) that are killed even by the "best" agricultural methods, the cows, chickens, emus, ostriches, bison, pigs, cats, and other edibles remain a miniscule portion of the total number of deaths.

Isn't the design of the human digestive tract enough to prove that humans should be eating meat? It is clearly that of an omnivore which means that meat should be part of our diet. Just like nutrition education has taught for decades, a balanced diet is the key. (Says the guy who is currently eating a nectarine while dreaming of a steak dinner tonight.)

sorry to be ther bearer of bad news but its true heck there is a religion in india called the janes that are so vegan the wont cut thier hair with scissors in case there is any lice or fleas in it that wil l get killed they pull all of thier hair out one strand at a time until they are completely bald

Most of the farm animals we eat (pigs, chickens, beef, etc) are either raised entirely on farm-raised grain (chicken, hogs) or are at least finished on grain in a feedlot (cattle, some lamb). You really have to go out of your way to find beef that was produced entirely on grass. So the argument presented above is largely specious. Your diet will involve killing of ground-nesting birds, etc, no matter which path you choose. However, you could do as I do, and supplement your diet with significant quantities of venison, canada goose, striper, etc....and know that no meadowlark eggs or earthworms were harmed in the process.

true story when my brother was six years old my dad hit a deer with his truck and got him right on the head and broke the deers nose.So he put it on the back of the truck and brought it home to clean it and cook it up.He pulled in about 10 seconds before my mom and brother did so my dad went and put down the gate of the truck and out plops the deers head and the first thing my brother saw was the blood RED nose of this deer.Now keep in mind this is about the 8 or 9th of december. As soon as my brother saw that he ran down the street shouting as loud as he could MY DAD KILLED RUDOLPH MY DAD KILLED RUDOLPH.He was doing that for a full minute before they caught him and got him back home and my dad spent almost all the rest of that night explaining what happend until he THOUGHT my brother believed him.So a couple of days later we all went out to the mall for christmas shopping and what do all malls have in december? thats right SANTA. My brother sees this and goes right up to him not bothering to wait in line shouts at the top of his lung. MY DAD KILLED RUDOLPH TUESDAY NIGHT SO THIS YEAR IF THERE IS ANY FOG YOU WONT BE ABLE DELIVER ANY PRESENTS BECAUSE RUDOLPH IS DEAD AND MY DAD KILLED HIM. So this santa started sputtering and mumbling about how rudolph isnt missing.It cant be the rudolph and all the children in the line are just screaming and crying there eyes out and my dad was getting the most evil looks form al l the parents that were trying to settle thier children down and sants stood up in his slay announcing that rudolph isnt missing.

We didnt see if any of the kids believed him because the security gaurds were escorting us off the premises at that time and the whole way back home my brother was saying.I hope your happy you ruined christmas for everyone you jerk. I was doing my best not to laugh my butt off and so was my mom. My dad was just gritting his teeth and trying not to get another migraine while he was again explaining how that wasnt rudolph and so christmas day comes along and this little creep got about 5 times the amount of christmas presents as i did that year. Along with a handwritten note from "SANTA" saying that the deer my dad killed not only wasnt rudolph but was actually rudolphs evil twin brother who was terribly jaealous of him and he was out on the road that night laying traps for santas sleigh. So that no one would get presents that year and if my dad wouldnt have killed him santa would have had to cancel christmas that year and maybe a couple of more. So my dad was a hero and not a jerk and he single handedly saved christmas worldwide for the millions of children in all countrys and the best thing my brother could do to thank my dad for saving christmas was to clean up his room once a week and go ahead and eat the venison steaks that my dad made out of evil rudolph.Wich is something my brother refused to do he would actually leave the house when the steaks were cooking for the full 2 weeks before christmas and wouldnt come back inside until dinner was over when my softy mom would make him a non rudolph meal so he wouldnt starve. But after christmas when he was practically ordered to by santa himself he had no problem eatingit after that it was a very interesting christmas season that year

We don't worship cows, if everyone here was a vegan there would be no cows or pigs. The species would have to be seen in the zoo. No one would keep them as pets, there would be no reason for them to survive. This guy also talks about urbanization keeping animals from their habitat? Some animals need their space, elk, wolves to mention a couple but many co-exist very well with man. I live right in the center of Houston, at this minute I have 2 swamp rabbits, 6 squirells, 2 dozen doves, black birds & various other birds in my back yard. At night I find evidence of racoons, possums, armadillos & rats out there (I haven't smelled a skunk in several years). They don't care that this neighborhood was established 50 years ago. The east coast is eaten up with white tailed deer & other things that don't mind living with man. West coast mountian lions carry off joggers occasionaly. This writer is nuts.

Yup. Our teeth show us the same thing. Plus, the microbiology. Dogs, who don't eat fruits, manufacture their own Vitamin C. Our diet requires additional vitamin B's, in fact some vegetarians suffer the effects of not enough B.

"sorry to be ther bearer of bad news but its [sic] true heck there is a religion in india called the janes that are so vegan the wont [sic] cut thier hair with scissors in case there is [sic] any lice or fleas in it that wil l get killed they pull all of thier [sic] hair out one strand at a time until they are completely bald"

Please. Jains.

Someone told me that Ghandi's parents were Jains and convinced themselves that they could not even consume plants morally...so they starved themselves to death.

Dunno if it's true. But it started me thinking...if you pick fruit that has fallen from the tree, carefully preserve the seeds, and eat it--and then plant the seeds, would that be morally acceptable to a Jain?

Feh! The real answer is to eat what you like within healthy limits. I had veal sznicel, kapusta, beets with chrzen, lettuce and tomatoes for dinner. Polish, yummy, and also OK for diabetics. No desert (sigh!).

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including: 1. Tractors and farm implements run over them. 2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows and kill animals. 3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed by predators. 4. Application of pesticides.

This is laughable. We raise beef steers. None of them have ever been run over by tractors or farm implements. They are too expensive to buy and raise to be so careless. First rule of the farming road: No drinking and tractoring.

#2 Seasonal flooding of the irrigation ditch also destroys and kills underground animals. This is a good thing. If the burrows are too big and soft a steer can break a leg with a fall. Them pesky critters (the underground kind) also destroy gardens in one night. Kill em all!

#3 Yeah, so. Crops are to be harvested. This is mother nature at work. It's how the world works. Get a grip.

#4 We have never had to use pesticides. But if we needed to we would. It's called rotation. Let the cattle feed on one section of unsprayed ground while the sprayed section sits for a couple of weeks. Get it?

Now, all you liberals, you can have my portion of tofu if I can have your portion of beef.

43
posted on 08/30/2003 2:37:42 PM PDT
by Oorang
( Go put your best bib and tuck on, I feel like a spree)

It argues that more animals die in growing plants than the animals that are killed for meat. This is partly true: many animals living in the ag fields are killed when the plants are harvested. However, we must feed the animals we eat, and, in fact, feed them 10 times as much plant matter as we would eat ourselves if we just ate the plants. (10-times is an average; some animals consume less, some consume more.) So we have to grow 10 times as much plant matter AND THEREFORE KILL 10 TIMES AS MANY ANIMALS in order to eat animals over plants. And this is without taking into account the number of animals being fed these plants...

So, while eating solely plants does often result in the death of nonhumanimals, eating animals will just as often require a far larger number of nonhumanimals killed in the process.

So, if we are trying to minize our harm, eating plants wins out. Unless, of course, you are eating wild game or 100% grass-fed animals, or other 'special' conditions are present.

Livestock are generally fed a grade of feed (corn, wheat, etc.) that is considered inedible by human standards, being either too tough or unsuitable in some other way. Eating the corn and such grown for them would just not be possible. Secondly, not all soil is equally fertile and many farmers don't have much choice in what they can grow on their patch of land. Because of the fertility, it may be either impractical or even impossible to grow higher grade crops, suited for human consumption.

If stuck with land such as above, it would only be sensible to raise crops suited for livestock, as well as the livestock to feed it to if space allows. If there's rights for the field mice, then does that mean the farmer who owns the land should let his family go broke and starve? At least the people who don't follow a strict vegan diet make use of the animals they kill (cows, sheep, chickens, etc.) by eating them. Strict vegetarians don't make any use of the animals killed while harvesting their food.

Also, if there's no moral "cost" to going vegan, then what about the controlled hunts to eliminate pests like deer from the fields? How about the disruption of that field's ecosystem by farmers introducing predators into the area who kill off smaller pests such as rodents and insects?

To say there's any sort of superiority morally to going vegan is pure hypocrisy.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.